This research examines how digital tools are reshaping the processes and practices of academic staff appraisal. It addresses the following question: What is the impact of digital technologies on academic staff appraisal systems?

The study builds upon Bouckaert and Halligan's (2008) performance management model, which, while acknowledging the role of information systems, has not yet been fully developed to account for the specific mediating role of contemporary digital tools. This framework is combined with neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) to analyze adaptation within German research-intensive universities. The empirical research employs a qualitative multiple-case study design (Yin, 2018) , based on semi-structured interviews with academics, administrators, and HR professionals and a systematic analysis of institutional documents and digital performance dashboards.

Preliminary findings indicate that digital technologies, such as performance dashboards and benchmarking platforms, significantly reconfigure appraisal processes. They intensify the focus on quantifiable outputs, creating a system of academic management that aligns with what Leišytė (2022) identifies as the logics of "surveillance capitalism," where data extraction and metricization standardize evaluation and increase visibility into academic work.

By providing empirical evidence on how digital tools re-shape core academic processes, this research addresses directly to the normative tensions highlighted by the conference theme. It demonstrates that the integration of digital technologies is not a neutral, technical update but a value-laden process that recalibrates the balance between accountability and professional autonomy, forcing a critical confrontation between managerial and academic logics in the university.